Fuckin Hell... Took me a while to figure out what $d021 is without checking the code - First I naturally assumed it was black, as with so many old titlescreens, then i saw that could not be and guessed lt.grey. that also did not work for a few blocks and then i checked orange, which too did not work - In the end it was fucking YELLOW! ;-D The most obvious choice if you look at the pic, stupid me...

Btw. as far as copying vs. art is concerned. I like the "bad designers copy, great designers steal," ...and don't get caught ;-). (one can replace designers by artists too) For example the Gollumm pic. It is a copy... further rework in detail makes it a steal, but author "got caught", everyone can recognize the original source. Of course he wanted to be it this way, and alhought it is a perfect pic, it doesn't make him great artist.

Now we know the background for this release, details published on c64.sk:
13. AUGUST 2011
Rambo Revisited GFX Compo 05:36
Idea and concept: This compo is inspired by Rambo. A Chronicle Of.. image released at LCP party (5-7 August 2011). It is almost pixel exact copy of the original Rambo First Blood - Part II - title pic. It was fairly and tediously repixelled by Twoflower to stir debate around value of pixel-craft, manual pixelling, originality etc. Read more in the comments and trivia under the pic.

Rules: Original image (in this initial post) is your inspiration and reference. You go anywhere from that. You can try improve it(like STE86 did here). You can redraw it using different technique or use other graphics mode. Even doublescreen! (pun inteded ;-) You can just take something (e.g. some detail) out of it an make it into whole new masterpiece. You can extend it, simplify...Im sure you can come up with your own ideas. Anything goes.

Pictures should be executable C64 .PRG files. They will be released on fly (as they are submitted). Voting will be perfomed online while the compo lasts (and about week-two after the deadline). In short, it will be working exactly like previous C64.sk compos.

Edit: I read 2F's context bit further down below now. I think you're missing the point: People vote 1 on this because they automatically assume you took Steve Wahid's picture and handed that in - not because it's a copy.

But I see where you were trying to go with this. I always say art is compromised of three factors: innovation, work and technique. The three factors may be weighted differently with each piece, but they *all* need to be present at least a little bit! ;-)

Edit 2: Oh and one more point: (For me) the interesting thing about a conversion (well, hand-made ones, not simply putting it through a converter) is how the artist recreates the picture within the c64's limits. But since this picture already existed on the c64, this aspect is now moot! ;-)

... and there is always someone clueless who will buy the crap and hang it on the wall.

the funniest thing was when (many years ago, mid 90s i think) a group of students managed to sell a bunch of pictures that way which *were* painted by a chimpanzee =) it turned into a hilarious scandal at the end, with people calling the pictures scam (although they were even signed, by the chimp, with his actual name - they trained him to do it) and wanted their money back. court said no, big rage emerged from artsyfarts :o) somehow reminds me of something.... =P

... and there is always someone clueless who will buy the crap and hang it on the wall.

Twoflower: This pic served it's purpose for me. I have read discussion that I have missed, article you have written, and I have been thinking about what you were trying to point out. I'm curious now, whether you wanted to show, that "having your pic completely handpixelled on C64 from reference, with stages provided" doesn't make it original and acceptable for compo. Because that's imho very strong point.

User CommentSubmitted by Chrom_ on 11 August 2011

Personally I can see the point of this release. I can understand Twoflower liked the picture because it reminded him of something, so he just probably started copying it to "get inside" the picture itself and the original artist's mind.

Would you guys like the picture better if you just label it as a tribute?

The image is not the issue - the discussion is. The primary thing is not that this image needs an explanation to point out its qualities, but rather that a discussion needed an image to highlight the weak points of its argumentation.

yes, totally sounds like what these artsyfarts in the gallery are saying. "its not the image"<blablabla>"its"<blablabla>. waste of time really =P

@Groepaz & Skate: You kind of point out my intention here. The image is not the issue - the discussion is. The primary thing is not that this image needs an explanation to point out its qualities, but rather that a discussion needed an image to highlight the weak points of its argumentation.

mmmh. i am with skate there. it seems a pointless waste of time and energy.
same for the discussion actually. reminds me of the excuses you can hear from "artists" whose pictures look like painted by a chimpanzee. as soon as an explaination is needed to "understand" a picture, the picture failed.

@Twoflower: We all know you are a talented graphician. But this is completely pointless to me. Even if I am not a good graphician, I can copy anything (maybe we can exclude some interlaced graphics) using that method. Also, I can easily cheat and change a few pixels over the original one. So, this feels like a complete masturbation to me, not that valuable as a scene product, sorry. At least, shouldn't be a part of a graphics compo.

@Stainless: It's certainly not a waste of time, energy or anything in that direction. This discussion alone made it worth the fuzz and was the sole purpose of the labor - save my own satisfaction.

@Kristian: I understand why people voted it low at the party; there was no way of telling what this was just by looking at it. As I described this in the Attitude article, even C64 art sometimes needs a context to make it readable. The same image can be two different things depending on how you choose to position it. I simply didn't have the time to add the context to it at the party, and I just wanted to get it released. I have no critique on the originality of Magnars picture, but i'd should perhaps clarify that I view it as: A) A wirejob with very little fix-up - an hour at the most. B) A collage of selfmade and found elements put together in Photoshop or Timanthes - in short an image with very little pixelcraft involved.

I can appreciate the experiment, but for a competition, without the explanation, it seems to me like something someone entered just to have a little fun. I can understand why someone would vote this low on CSDB, and personally I voted it low at LCP. It's got nothing to do with the image in itself.

I'm not into wired pictures, but if I understand Magnars comment on his own image correctly, it is atleast based on a photo he took, his own original work. Not just something he found on the internet.

Perhaps the technique is outdated: --- tick (definitely for a layperson)

Isn't this a better image than a converted one?: --- it's a copy of already existing pixelwork.

Is the judgement based on the fact that a similar (ok, very similar) image exists on the C64? --- tick

Might the reason be that muscles and guns is a bad topic for compoimages in 2011? --- don't think so.

Is this release not deserving any respect concidering the many hours of craft which lies behind this? --- The Emperor's new clothes is a tale that in a way addresses this question. And even with context, it is still just (almost) pixel exact copy of the original. That's not much for a layperson nor for artist and if they say that it is, they are like those people in Emperor's new clothes.

Or are you voting a 1 because of the conceptual artsy-fartsyness? --- I think this would be my case if I voted 1.

Phew.. did I win something?

I would like to see Ptoing taking this picture and fixing it. There could be a compo organised solely around this pic too. That would roxxor...

P.S: The picture itself works great with quotes in trivia. If those quotes were part of the executable as an intro page, it would probably deliver the message effectively.

Interesting concept this, and Twoflower (who happens to be one of my favourite artists on the C64) raises and partially answers some tricky questions about influence, motivation, wires and copying by doing this stunt. I am not sure if I understand all the questions nor if I agree with his answers, but there you have it. I appreciate this about seven times more than a wired picture.

As requested - some contextualization and background is added (see "Trivia" and "Production Notes"). Workstages and origano will be added shortly. But to start with - I didn't compete with this image to rank high, but to raise the question on what the role of pixelcraft is for us today. Let's look at it objectively - the image in itself is a great one. It was great in 1986 and it still is one of my favourite C64 images. Still it ranked last in the graphics competition at LCP 2010 and have recieved a number of 1's in the CSDb votes. Perhaps the technique is outdated, but isn't this a better image than a converted one? Is the judgement based on the fact that a similar (ok, very similar) image exists on the C64? Might the reason be that muscles and guns is a bad topic for compoimages in 2011? Just a question for you 1 voters out there - is this release not deserving any respect concidering the many hours of craft which lies behind this? Or are you voting a 1 because of the conceptual artsy-fartsyness? The answer of the above question is probably - I don't get this; this looks like a 1985 Steven Wahid image - why the hell does he compete with this?

So, now when you know the context - does your judgement of the image and my actions change? And what about the hours of hard, manual pixeling put down on this project? This image was beaten in the compo (and here - to judge from the votes) by an obvious wirejob with a minimal level of touch-up (Dragonlady by Magnar). What does that say concerning craft?

This is certainly no joke and neither any kind of laughing-matter. Nor is it a fake-production or an image from 1985 - this is a new image. This is 10-15 hours of hard eye-to-screen craftmanship. Expect a full explanation / contextualization aswell as the workstages and the origano (in crafthugger-style) when I have gotten some sleep.

The article is great. I mean GREAT! This picture doesn't make any extension of that article for me. But yes, I admit that I might be just stupid and don't get it.I mean, it doesn't serve as punchline, it isn't funny, it's not even nice, or improvement. Throw spoilers on me.. thanx.

Actually, yes, now I see it. A few pixels have changed, like on the bottom on the left side of his pants a grey fold, background around his right shoulder and the right hand under the RPG (from my point of view). Still... why?

About this site:
CSDb (Commodore 64 Scene Database) is a website which goal is to gather as much information and material about the scene
around the commodore 64 computer - the worlds most popular home computer throughout time. Here you can find almost anything which was ever made
for the commodore 64, and more is being added every day. As this website is scene related, you can mostly find demos, music and graphics made by the
people who made the scene (the sceners), but you can also find a lot of the old classic games here.
Try out the search box in the top right corner, or check out the CSDb main page for the latest additions.